It’s a small issue that gets a wildly disproportionate level of focus and media coverage when the country is so ****ed in various, much larger ways. IMO.
Yes, it is an issue, but not one that's massively impactful on the vast majority of people in this country.
So are we agreeing that the current figure of 6 million a day is correct ? What’s that x 365 ? And if that is correct then surely that’s just gonna get bigger ? Surely that money could be used elsewhere and as it can’t be at present, then surely that has a massive impact on us all.
The £6m day is a consequence of the government's failure to deal with asylum applications efficiently. They're only in hotels whilst their applications are dealt with. How about allowing them to work while they're waiting, contributing to the cost and helping to solve the labour shortage? Anyway, it's not the cash - most of which will be going to Tory donors - that they want you to focus on. It's the thought that that we are being invaded.
The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023. Today’s statement is an admission of failure—perhaps that is why the Home Secretary has asked the Immigration Minister to make it instead. Four years ago, the Cabinet said that they would halve channel crossings; they have gone up twentyfold since then. A year ago, they said they would end hotel use; they have opened more than ever. They keep making new announcements, but it just keeps getting worse. People want to see strong border security, and properly managed asylum and refugee systems, so that the UK does its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict, alongside other countries, but we have got neither of those at the moment. There is no point in the Government blaming everyone else, because they are in charge. The asylum system is broken because they broke it; they have let criminal gangs rip along the channel; people smuggler convictions have halved in the past four years, even though more boats and more gangs have been crossing—and yet Tory MPs yesterday voted against Labour’s plan for cross-border police units to go after the gangs; and they have let asylum decision making collapse—we have had a big increase in staff, but 40% fewer cases being decided. So they have failed to take basic decisions and they are still not doing Labour’s plan to fast-track last year’s arrivals from Albania and other safe countries. As for today’s announcements, we need to end costly and inappropriate hotel use, but these plans do not do that. The Minister has had to admit that, contrary to all the briefing in the papers this morning, they will not end hotel use—instead, these sites are additional. Ministers should have been finding cheaper sites and properly managing costs years ago. Today’s damning report from the Government’s own independent watchdog, which strangely the Minister did not mention today, says that there has been no cost control; that the Home Office contracts are highly inefficient; that there is no cross-Government transparency and oversight; and that officials did not have financial information on the contracts they were signing and did not compare costs. Most ludicrously of all, it says that “different parts of the Home Office operating different schemes…at times, found themselves competing for the same hotel contracts, driving prices up.” This is totally chaotic. Basically, the Government have written a whole load of cheques in a panic. If they had put that money into clearing the backlog instead, we would not be in this mess now. They should have been working with councils to do that, but they did not. Yesterday, Tory MPs again voted against Labour’s plans for a legal requirement for councils to be consulted. Instead, the Minister has Conservative councils, backed by Conservative MPs, taking action against him. So can he confirm that the Foreign Secretary is backing legal action against the Home Secretary? Frankly, that is a first, even for this chaotic Government. The Bill makes things worse. There are no returns agreements with France or Europe. The Prime Minister has just said that the Home Secretary was wrong: the Rwanda flights will not start this summer. The Government have nowhere to send people to and, instead of speeding up asylum decisions, they are just going to cancel them, which means more people in asylum accommodation and hotels and more flimflam headlines that just do not stack up. Today, it was barges and it turns out that there are not any. Desperate to distract everyone from the damage that they might want to do to the Dambusters heritage, they instead start talking about ferries and barges. Three years ago, they said the same thing. Last summer, the Prime Minister said that it would be cruise liners. The Home Office civil servant said that ferries would end up costing more than the hotels on which they are already spending so much money. So, instead, the Immigration Minister has been sent around the country with a copy of “Waterways Weekly”, trying to find barges, and he still has not found any. Can the Minister tell us: are these sites going to be additional and not instead of hotel use? Will he still be using more hotels, or fewer for asylum seekers in six months’ time? On the 45,000 boat arrivals last year, can he confirm that more than 90% of decisions have not been taken because the backlog is still the Government’s failure? Will the Minister apologise for the Government’s failure on cost control? They failed to support Labour’s plan to go after the gangs, to get a new agreement with France and to fast-track decisions and returns. They are flailing around in a panic, chasing headlines—barges, oil rigs, Rwanda flights, even wave machines—instead of doing the hard graft. They have lost control of our border security, lost control of the asylum system, lost control of their budget and lost control of themselves. Will he answer my questions and will he get a grip?
I’m not disagreeing with some of what you say…however you are not addressing the point I was making. It is indeed impacting the general public by cuts in funding and spending. And to negate it as an issue is wrong imho, as is the assertion often made that anyone who voices concerns about the issue is “racist”
Yes, the money is significant, but the solution is in the government's hands - did you read the Yvette Cooper speech? Sunak didn't promise to stop the spending, he promised to stop the boats. Zoe Gardner, migration policy expert, reveals why the Government is pursuing its migrant policy | “They’re doing that to create a theatre, a crisis…so that they can then say at the next election they can offer the solution” Zoe Gardner, migration... | By BBC Newsnight | Facebook
Listened to a good podcast interview with Peter Bleksley, a former undercover policeman and author. A great advocate for the legalisation and regulation of drugs, his arguments for doing so make a lot of sense. It would take a very brave government to do so, however if this approach was taken, he believes the government could make billions in the control of narcotics and make a big impact on crime. The war on drugs can never be won, the business of “supply and demand” is in the hands of rich criminals and it’s time we should take a different approach.
I've always thought that legalisation, with proper regulation, makes sense. Bleksley's a QPR fan, by the way.
The hotels are paid for out of the ‘international development’ budget, explicitly. This itself is being cut radically, after once being Cameron’s pride and joy. So actually money which you would assume is leaving the country is being put back into the economy here. And, presumably, British tax is being paid on it. So, on the face of it, the reverse to what you are claiming, although there is a case for saying extra pressure on health and education is a type of cut, if not properly funded. Apart from what we send to the World Bank very little of the International Development (old style foreign aid) budget is spent overseas. However, this is, in my opinion, a huge issue. Massive flows of people around the world are likely to get bigger because of conflicts and climate change. I don’t think we have had a proper, open debate about this. Sunak et al seem to think that if they reduce or stop people arriving in small boats that’s it, job done. I doubt that very much. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that the British hate immigrants who arrive on boats, or immigrants who are housed near to them, or immigrants from particular countries, without sharing the evidence. All three might be true, but I don’t know. With this bizarre criminalisation of nitrous oxide it’s clear that the British government is moving in the opposite direction to most of the rest of the western world, where decriminalisation is the norm. Apparently the problem is kids hanging around littering parks - which I thought could have been dealt with under existing laws. Yet again the issue is operational, not legal, but all politicians do is make laws which they have no idea how to enforce. The only downside of decriminalisation I’ve personally noted is the overpowering smell of weed you get walking the streets of Chicago or Manhattan nowadays. Unless you are smoking yourself it’s pretty unpleasant. Last time in Chicago I was talking about it to hotel staff and they said that since liberalisation loads of people go to the city just to get weed, they don’t spend on anything else. They were hoping the novelty would wear off, and also that the mayor would get voted out, as she will be next month, because of the virtual abandonment of downtown policing.
I didn’t know that (Bleksley being QPR). The legalisation/regulation of drugs has always been something I’ve always been fully in favour of (you see we do agree sometimes Strolls ). It just makes perfect sense, safer for all, a big hit on criminal gangs, more money for whichever government in power and would help development and hopefully stop the exploitation of many third world farmers who grow the stuff. Sadly both sides of the political spectrum in this country seem to be more interested in placating Doreen from Chelmsford, rather than have a sensible debate about the subject.
Well pit as always G. I agree, our government and the Opposition seem intent on becoming hardline and trying to win a war they can never win. Can’t say the smell is that off putting to me, even though I was never really in to weed. But I would like to think most will see it as a small price to pay for a policy that could quite honestly, change the country for the good.
Migration per se is a highly significant issue and will become more so as a consequence of climate change. What I find offensive is the cynical political exploitation of the small boats issue, which in itself represents a small element of UK immigration. It's not necessarily racist to be concerned about immigration, but racists are being pandered to by the likes of Patel and Braverman pointing at brown people in boats and describing them as invaders.
To be fair they’ve completely given up on the economy, health, education, transport, inequality and the environment so if they’ve any chance of doing ok in the local elections in a month we really need to be talking about dinghies, Gary Lineker and gender-neutral toilets as much as possible.
He's a season ticket holder, been on the podcast a couple of times. Talking of drugs, interesting episode on Popular Front this week about heroin and meth production in Afghanistan since the Taliban took back control
Yeah i listened to it mate. Enjoying being back down the gym and running again as I’m catching up on loads of the podcasts that I’m behind with. Popular Front and James English being the main ones.
